This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of employee status (privately owned delivery vehicles).” Decision date: 2026-09-11 · Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해712 Key issue summary: Upon examining whether the applicants, who worked as courier delivery drivers, qualified as “employees” under the Labor Standards Act, the Commission found that: (i) the “consignment agreement” executed between the parties specified detailed matters regarding the parcel delivery work; (ii) there were no objective circumstances to suggest that the consignment agreements were concluded against the workers’ will, given that they personally signed the contracts; (iii) the workers registered businesses in their own names for parcel delivery and received consignment fees calculated based on the per-delivery rate and quantity of parcels, etc. 1. Legal Implications In this unfair dismissal case, courier delivery drivers filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, but the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the case on the ground that they were not employees under the Labor Standards Act. As in many cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Commission focused its analysis on the substantive employee status of the courier drivers, who had formally entered into “consignment agreements.” Ⅰ. Case Overview The applicants were courier drivers who performed delivery work for a particular courier company, having entered into “consignment agreements” with the company and registered as business operators in their own names. After the contractual relationship with the company was terminated, they regarded this as a de facto unfair dismissal and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether they qualified as employees under the Labor Standards Act and then determined whether to grant the requested relief. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case was whether courier delivery drivers who perform delivery work under consignment agreements and after registering as business operators qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act. In other words, the core question was whether, despite the formal structure of a contract for work/consignment and the appearance of operating as sole proprietors, they in substance provided work under the direction and control of the company in return for wages. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel found that: (i) the consignment agreements executed between the parties set out in detail the content and conditions of the parcel delivery work, and there was no objective evidence that the contracts were forced upon the applicants, who signed them in their own handwriting; (ii) the applicants voluntarily registered parcel delivery businesses and received consignment fees based on the per-delivery rate and volume handled; (iii) the existence of a certain framework for delivery schedules and routes appeared to stem from the nature of the courier industry itself, and it was difficult to view this as the employer specifically designating working hours and places or exercising substantial direction and supervision; and (iv) the applicants were not subject to the employer’s work rules and bore the costs and responsibility of maintaining and managing their own vehicles. On this basis, the panel held that it was difficult to recognize the “relationship of subordination to the employer for the purpose of receiving wages” required for employee status under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the applicants did not qualify as employees under the Act, and there was no need to further examine the existence or legitimacy of any dismissal premised on such status. The Commission therefore denied employee status and found in favor of the employer. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) Courier drivers, platform drivers, and others working under consignment or contract-for-work arrangements should first bear in mind that employee status is not automatically denied merely because of the title of the contract or the fact of business registration. However, as in this case, where no work rules apply, the individual has registered as a business operator and is paid fees settled on a quantity/unit-price basis, operates equipment and vehicles at his or her own cost and responsibility, and is subject to only weak direction, supervision, and control over working hours and place by the company, there is a high likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will not recognize employee status. Therefore, if you intend to assert that you are an employee and seek relief for unfair dismissal, it is important to accumulate objective evidence on an ongoing basis (such as messenger instructions, work schedules, records of allocation and control of deliveries, etc.) showing how, in reality, the employer’s direction and supervision, designation of working hours and place, job assignment and evaluation, application of work rules and service regulations, enrollment in the four major social insurances, payment of fixed wages or minimum guarantees, and other factors have operated. In addition, when a dispute arises, you should be aware that the definition of “employee” may differ under each statute (e.g., the Labor Standards Act versus the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act). You should therefore design appropriate remedies and legal arguments for your specific situation in consultation with an expert. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the company’s perspective, if you exercise direction and supervision, and control working hours and place, over courier drivers, delivery drivers, platform partners, etc. to a level substantially equivalent to that over employees, while maintaining only the formal structure of consignment agreements and business registration, you should be aware that you may incur extensive legal liabilities in the future—such as for unfair dismissal, wages and severance pay, and the four major social insurances—if employee status is recognized in subsequent case law or decisions. Cases like this one, in which employee status was denied, are based solely on the specific factual circumstances (degree of direction and supervision, non-application of work rules, structure in which the individual bears vehicle and other costs, etc.), and it is risky to assume safety merely because of the “consignment” form. Accordingly, if you wish to maintain a consignment structure, you should systematically review the criteria for determining subordination established by the Supreme Court—such as autonomy in the manner of performing work, discretion in choosing time and place, the possibility of hiring third parties, and the allocation of profits and losses—and ensure substantive independence. Conversely, if your actual operations resemble employee status due to continuous and exclusive direction and supervision and the payment of fixed wages, it may be advisable, from a long-term risk-management perspective, to redesign your HR and labor structure by converting to formal employment contracts, revising work rules, and reviewing the requirements for redundancy dismissals. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was determined that courier drivers did not qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act, who provide labor under a relationship of subordination to an employer for the purpose of receiving wages. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning Upon examining whether the applicants, who worked as courier delivery drivers, qualified as employees under the Labor Standards Act, the Commission found that: (i) the “consignment agreements” executed between the parties specified detailed matters regarding the parcel delivery work; (ii) there were no objective circumstances to suggest that the consignment agreements were concluded against the workers’ will, given that they personally signed the contracts; (iii) the workers registered businesses in their own names for parcel delivery and received consignment fees and other payments calculated according to the per-delivery rate and quantity; (iv) the fact that delivery schedules and routes were to some extent predetermined appeared to result from the nature of the courier industry, and it was therefore difficult to view the workers as being bound by specific working hours and places or as having been subject to substantial direction and supervision by the employer; and (v) there was no evidence that the employer’s work rules applied to them, and they themselves maintained and managed their personally owned vehicles. In light of the foregoing, the Commission held that it was difficult to regard the workers as having provided labor under a relationship of subordination to the employer for the purpose of receiving wages, and thus they could not be considered employees under the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, there was no need to further examine the existence or legitimacy of any dismissal premised on such status. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Interest in Relief · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’ - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’ - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (privately owned delivery vehicles), others, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm ※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Limitation on Legal Application (Fewer Than Five Regular Employees)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to denial of employee status (privately owned delivery vehicles) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Privately Owned Delivery Vehicles).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article